Post: #1

If you're here in the manosphere/alt-right movement, chances are you believe some kind of ruling aristocracy is crucial for the success of a nation or people, be that in the form of a Republic (such as early USA) or a monarchy. However, the traditional accusation leveled against aristocracy, and even the aforementioned governments in general is that they leave no means to effectively deal with incompetent rulers. This is really the only valid objection to aristocracy.

In order to remedy this, the best answer is social mobility. Not just upward mobility, however, but also downward mobility. In other words, the society must have some kind of meritocratic structure. How can this be achieved?

Post: #2

War

Post: #3

War is actually normally how it's achieved. China is probably a good historical microcosm of this. Weak kings or a weak groups of nobles get purged and often killed by a stronger one, who is better able to gather men and resources to his cause (which often means support from dissenting aristocrats), and who is better able to make war etc. Other than that, the nobles sometimes just kill the king or expel him, depending on who's next in line for the throne, but this is rare.

It would be nice if it could be achieved without war, but there exists no truer judge of hierarchy than another human, and if he won't agree he will fight. War will always be here, the best that can be done is reduce its size and frequency, such as by trying to keep it to "wars between princes".

One dynamic that also exists, especially in absolute monarchies, is that the power of the king and the aristocrats ebbs and flows depending on their traits. For instance, Louis 14th, who was an extremely strong and able man (and also allegedly banged his wife twice a day well into his 70s), inherented a throne with a very strong and often rebellious nobility, and managed to reign them all in under total control. In cases where the king is weak (I.e. unable to play games of power as effectively, command respect etc, due to lesser intelligence and other lacking traits), it tends to go the other way -- the nobles take on more power.

But anyway this is not the only flaw of aristocracy. It also has a bad tendency of leaching off the lower classes if it can get away with it. This is partly what caused the French revolution, whereby the nobles lived massively privileged lives (no tax for them, just everyone else), wouldn't budge on that, causing a level of resentment that precipitated them getting slaughtered en masse. This then led to a vacillating constitution, including characters like Napoleon, ultimately resulting in the degenerate democracy they have now which lets foreign invaders walk over the borders not only with impunity, but with actual support. So aristocrats aren't immune from weakness themselves.

Post: #4

The fault of Monarchy and Aristocraty is nepotism - selecting people in charge based on their blood, not actual ability, skill or virtue.

The advantages of Monarchy and Aristocracy is that those people are there for life and even their heirs inherit their work, they are not thinking just how to plunder resources during their term, they actually build things to last and prosper for a long time, because they are bound for life to their country and their duties, they are one with their office, land and vassals.

Competent and benevolent monarchy is better then democracy which is always mediocre, but democracy is better then incompetent and tyrannical monarchy.

There are two ways, I can think of, how to hold the monarch and aristocrats up to a high standard.

1)Keep the population armed.

2)Have a higher moral standard then the laws monarch/government issues to know whether they are up to good or no good. That means God/gods and religion is a must have for strong and prosperous monarchies. The Monarch and aristocrats must be seen as fulfilling the will of heavens, they must be the elects of God. Otherwise they can have no valid authority and no accountability.

Post: #5

Council of leading businessmen. Truth be told we mostly have this today and it's not working out for us. However it is an effeciency way to rule(could be at least if we didn't have the whole show&dance.) Those who fund and market the change of law should be the public figures held accountable for said changes.

It would take serious development to make this idea viable, can't just have the top profiteers in charge but those most beneficial to their home country & it's native born populations.

Post: #6

Decentralized natural elites. Private property / private law society. Someone, through his voluntary dealings with the community, becomes known as a just man. He is called upon to adjudicate/arbitrate by both parties in a dispute because of such a reputation. He cultivates successors (who could be relatives), which lends them some credence, but the merits of their immediate actions in this capacity soon determine if they can follow in a career that requires at least the tacit consent of both future parties in a dispute.

Post: #7

After war has ebbed, as an ideal; Anarchy exists in a more formal sense of there being no state. There would be seven billion different forms of government who respect the property of others and do not interfere with one another unless it is a voluntary action or in defense of their property or families. The meritocracy exists in the interactions between one another particularly in trade and family. But since there is no La La Land, it remains War.

Post: #8

Quote:If you're here in the manosphere/alt-right movement, chances are you believe some kind of ruling aristocracy is crucial for the success of a nation or people, be that in the form of a Republic (such as early USA) or a monarchy.

Au-contraire. A strong ruling class/aristocracy isn't necessary at all for a successful society to function. Ruling families eventually become too entrenched and cannot be removed, and as others noted here, civil war is the likely outcome.

Many of America's problems can be traced to entrenchment politics, career politicians, political dynasties, familial politics, and vested interests, essentially a modern day aristocracy. Additionally America's current problems can be traced to America's past problems, an entrenched southern plantation aristocracy that exploited race and class to divide the working poor, eventually causing civil war, and civil unrest for a generation thereafter.

A system with a strong constitution, rule of law, and the protection of individual rights with the safety valve of universal suffrage will always be superior to a system of landed aristocracy, dictatorship, or monarchy. The latter leaves war as the only option for political change.

Post: #9

(02-21-2016 01:44 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  Au-contraire. A strong ruling class/aristocracy isn't necessary at all for a successful society to function. Ruling families eventually become too entrenched and cannot be removed, and as others noted here, civil war is the likely outcome.

Many of America's problems can be traced to entrenchment politics, career politicians, political dynasties, familial politics, and vested interests, essentially a modern day aristocracy.Additionally America's current problems can be traced to America's past problems, an entrenched southern plantation aristocracy that exploited race and class to divide the working poor, eventually causing civil war, and civil unrest for a generation thereafter.

A system with a strong constitution, rule of law, and the protection of individual rights with the safety valve of universal suffrage will always be superior to a system of landed aristocracy, dictatorship, or monarchy. The latter leaves war as the only option for political change.

You're very much begging the question. If, as you say, universal suffrage protects against aristocracy, then why are so many of America's present problems due to what you call an entrenched aristocracy?

The answer, of course, is that the "aristocracy" you refer to is no aristocracy at all, and this is a difference not of terminology but of content. The modern elite typically owe their position to their avarice, ambition, ruthlessness and egotism; a democratic elite, therefore, quickly becomes a clubhouse of vice. Aristocrats owe their position merely to their line, and thus can think of the common good independent of individual ambition, something democratic elites rarely do because they're too busy scheming on how to better feather their beds or win the next fact-free, deep-pockets-funded, shouting-match election. A ruler's ability to attend to the people's interest, not his own interest, belongs to non-elected governance.

Do you really think it superior when rulership is given to those who most shamelessly and callously claw (and, inevitably, lie) their way to the top? Do you think the ethos of used car salesmen superior to that of kings?

Additionally, it is perfectly possible if not ideal to have a strong constitution and protection of individual rights, as well as mechanisms for peaceful removal of bad rulers while employing non-elected forms of government. The most successful societies in history have had precisely that combination, while full democracy and universal suffrage is an unproven experiment that's presently going laughably awry.

Phoenix Wrote:But anyway this is not the only flaw of aristocracy. It also has a bad tendency of leaching off the lower classes if it can get away with it. This is partly what caused the French revolution, whereby the nobles lived massively privileged lives (no tax for them, just everyone else), wouldn't budge on that, causing a level of resentment that precipitated them getting slaughtered en masse.

The history is a bit more complex than that. First, membership in the French aristocracy was massively fluid throughout the 1700's: by some counts France had one of the largest portions of bought titles in Europe, and the genuine blue bloods were far from dominant. As for taxes, by 1789, the richest aristocracy was essentially already paying taxes through various roundabout means, and by the time the Estates General met, most of the nobility was fine with getting rid of the exemption altogether simply to formalize the status quo. The nobles who were most likely to be against this (although it seems to have depended more on conviction than economic situation) were poor noble families (usually with longer historical lines) who lived in very similar circumstances to the peasants they ruled over...poorer noble families (and there were quite a few of them, especially in certain areas) stood to lose far more from the jettisoning of ancient privilege, while the rich aristocrats (many of whom had recently bought their titles outright) could afford to lose them when most of their economic interests (be they shipping, manufacturing, etc) were subject to some form of tax already.

The second estate was politically split, and its sympathies cut both ways. There were many conservatives, anti-revolutionaries and emigres among the nobility, but many wide-eyed revolutionaries as well. Lafayette is the obvious example, especially in his role of the disappointed idealist (a cliche all revolutions are full of), but as the revolution went on and even as it grew more radical, ex-aristocrats continue to pop up in active support of the destruction of old France and brutality against their former fellows. The Duc d'Orleans' pro-revolutionary influence was huge early on, and he continued to be a bile-spitting Jacobin (fatuously renaming himself "Phillip Equality") right up to the moment he was denounced and guillotined in 1793.

At any rate, the details of taxes and nobility are hard for me to recall specifically, a good book of the Revolution will answer it far better than I could. Suffice to say, though, the common image of landed gentry vs urban masses is tremendously oversimplified and often outright incorrect.

Post: #10

Saga Wrote:You're very much begging the question. If, as you say, universal suffrage protects against aristocracy, then why are so many of America's present problems due to what you call an entrenched aristocracy?

The answer, of course, is that the "aristocracy" you refer to is no aristocracy at all, and this is a difference not of terminology but of content. The modern elite typically owe their position to their avarice, ambition, ruthlessness and egotism; a democratic elite, therefore, quickly becomes a clubhouse of vice. Aristocrats owe their position merely to their line, and thus can think of the common good independent of individual ambition, something democratic elites rarely do because they're too busy scheming on how to better feather their beds or win the next fact-free, deep-pockets-funded, shouting-match election. A ruler's ability to attend to the people's interest, not his own interest, belongs to non-elected governance.

Do you really think it superior when rulership is given to those who most shamelessly and callously claw (and, inevitably, lie) their way to the top? Do you think the ethos of used car salesmen superior to that of kings?

Additionally, it is perfectly possible if not ideal to have a strong constitution and protection of individual rights, as well as mechanisms for peaceful removal of bad rulers while employing non-elected forms of government. The most successful societies in history have had precisely that combination, while full democracy and universal suffrage is an unproven experiment that's presently going laughably awry.

America has allowed the rule of law to ebb, and 'smart money' (big finance) to penetrate the senate, congress, and even the white house. The lobbying industry was what Roosevelt dismantled with his anti-trust crusade against Rockerfeller's Standard Oil, and the Northern Security Company of J.P Morgan. The re-emergence of K-Street has been a disaster for America. Super PAC's, billion dollar elections, and a 'give and take' relationship between politicians and corporations have tainted the democratic process.

A democracy without strong individual protections, and a solid enforcement of the rule of law is just mob rule in waiting. One of the major reasons why Latin Democracies failed to gain traction until the 90s was precisely this reason. The weak rule of law coupled with universal suffrage caused mob rule. Aggressive swings of ideologies between hard left, and hard right, between communists, and fascists/reactionaries. Elections were no holds barred, winner takes all affairs. A sensible democracy has checks and balances to protect citizens, from vulture capitalism, from ruinous political ideologies, and essentially from themselves, especially if the nation isn't homogenous.

Post: #11

(02-17-2016 09:07 PM)ModernMaleficarum Wrote:  If you're here in the manosphere/alt-right movement, chances are you believe some kind of ruling aristocracy is crucial for the success of a nation or people, be that in the form of a Republic (such as early USA) or a monarchy. However, the traditional accusation leveled against aristocracy, and even the aforementioned governments in general is that they leave no means to effectively deal with incompetent rulers. This is really the only valid objection to aristocracy.

In order to remedy this, the best answer is social mobility. Not just upward mobility, however, but also downward mobility. In other words, the society must have some kind of meritocratic structure. How can this be achieved?

This post is incredibly vague. Debating generalizations in such broad terms is pointless.

Post: #12

Problems with aristocracy (depending on what sort of aristocracy we're talking about, as mentioned the OP was hopelessly vague):

1. An out-of-touch aristocracy tends to neglects the interests of the common people and/or the military, which leads to civil unrest and revolts.

2. Aristocracy tends to bad at peaceful transfers of power, leading to assassinations, corruption, civil war, and reigns of terror.

3. Ruler incompetence. Note... "ruler incompetence" is probably not what the OP intended. The demands of leadership aren't constant. A moderately skilled leader faced with a crisis may fail to deal with it effectively, while a moderately unskilled leader may be able to do fine if he's not challenged. Both are different from a Caligula or a Nero who actively creates problems where none existed before.

Post: #13

(02-17-2016 09:07 PM)ModernMaleficarum Wrote:  If you're here in the manosphere/alt-right movement, chances are you believe some kind of ruling aristocracy is crucial for the success of a nation or people, be that in the form of a Republic (such as early USA) or a monarchy. However, the traditional accusation leveled against aristocracy, and even the aforementioned governments in general is that they leave no means to effectively deal with incompetent rulers. This is really the only valid objection to aristocracy.

In order to remedy this, the best answer is social mobility. Not just upward mobility, however, but also downward mobility. In other words, the society must have some kind of meritocratic structure. How can this be achieved?

In other words, you propose typical modernist approach:

There is no perfect and utopian solution, so let's not chose lesser evil but let's nuke the world or at best - chose the worst solution (mass pluralism of unlettered mob).

(02-21-2016 08:36 PM)Blaster Wrote:  Both are different from a Caligula or a Nero who actively creates problems where none existed before.

Depictions of Nero and Caligula were and are challenged. Some accounts describe them as moderate and rational rulers. We use the one that stick the best, which describe them as archetypal tyrants. It is nothing but a hearsay, upon which historians in lack of better info, rely.